Time for Clinton to Take Risks

Is Bill Clinton sitting on a lead and being too cautious, as many pundits have suggested, or is he playing very smart politics? One does not necessarily contradict the other. So far, being cautious has been smart politics for Clinton. But that is about to change.

After the Democratic convention, the vastly successful Clinton-Gore buscapade set the tone for what has been Clinton’s main message--time for change, let a new generation take over. It worked not only because it was staged so well, but because it spoke directly to the feelings of voters. They desperately want change and new leaders. Clinton and Al Gore looked like they had exactly the right stuff.

A key rule in presidential politics is to align your campaign message with the mind-set of the people. Show and tell them what they already know. A perfect example was Ronald Reagan’s “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” line at the 1980 debate. All across television land that night, millions of people answered, “Hell, no, we’re not better off.” Reagan had pushed a national hot button.

So if you’re Clinton and your lead is 10 points--bigger in most key battleground states--and you’ve pushed the national hot button of change, why take many risks? Until now, this strategy has been just fine, but the public is moving into what I call the “heightened awareness” stage of the presidential campaign season. Till now, they have been content to yell for change. In these last four weeks, they will want to know what kind of change and a lot more about the person who is going to lead them. The electorate is about to take a last look at who Clinton is and what he’s made of.

What the electorate will not want to see is a cautious, take-no-chances campaign. Clinton should up the ante and go even harder at George Bush than he has to date. Talk about a failed presidency, keep his flip-flop on taxes alive, hit him on his role in Iran-Contra.

Don’t be afraid to use negative advertising. The Republicans have always been ahead of the curve on negative ads. Beat them to the punch. And Clinton shouldn’t let up on the attack--even during the debates.

It will most likely be through the debates that the voters take their last measure of Clinton. He doesn’t need to win the debates to be successful. Instead, he must reassure voters he has the stuff to be President. Whether little man Ross Perot is there or not, Clinton will have the immediate advantage of being on an equal footing with the President. That alone will help him in this last series of auditions for the public. But it is what he says that will be most closely heard.

Besides attacking Bush, now is the time for Clinton to reach back to his Three Covenant speeches of 1991, when he talked with passion about sacrifice, work over welfare and personal responsibility. The kind of message that calls for some pain on the part of the electorate and challenges the traditional interest groups of the Democratic Party. The kind of message that made Clinton so refreshing last year. The kind of message that Clinton has used sparingly in the fall campaign. And the kind of message some of his political handlers will think is risky.

But it is not risky because it is real. The voters don’t want to hear boiler-plate pablum or feel they’re being pandered to. They want the truth, even if it hurts. They know instinctively what Clinton was saying last year is the right message. So does Clinton. It was this message that set him apart from past Democrats, that made him fresh, brimming with enthusiasm and ideas.

When he told audiences: “There will never be a government program for every problem. Much of what holds us together and moves us ahead is the daily assumption of personal responsibility. I can promise to do a hundred different things for you as President. But none of them will make any difference unless we all do more as citizens”--they listened. If he gets back to this same message during the debates, he will pass the last-look test of the voters--and then he will be President.